Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2476 ..

community setting for this group of people based on their disability and their clinical treatment regimes.

As Mr Corbell has indicated, the government has allocated some money to create the 40-bed facility at Calvary. It will take a bit of time to build that. What we are talking about here is an interim regime where both types of people can be satisfied. Whether or not there is a full take-up of beds at RILU, and the reasons for that, is immaterial. The fact is that there is capacity within the context of Ward 12B. There is nothing to suggest that that will be a permanent arrangement.

People who are in nursing home type beds are not necessarily older people; they are people who have to stay in hospital a certain length of time because of the nature of their condition. They need to have a service as well. Mr Smyth cannot criticise the government for a lack of decent throughput, according to his measure, and then turn round and say that the government should not have come up with a regime to address that in part. Making beds available to nursing home type patients as well as to patients in rehabilitation treatment regimes will mean that some acute care beds will be freed up. Mr Smyth will deny the use of those 40 beds in the clinical setting—make no mistake about that.

I urge members not to support Mr Smyth’s motion on two bases: firstly, he is seeking to micro-manage the subset of a department.

Mr Stefaniak interjecting—

MR HARGREAVES: Each time they interject, I shall merely stop, go back, and start my paragraph all over again.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a very severe warning, Mr Hargreaves.

MR HARGREAVES: Indeed. If members want to stay here until hell freezes over, that is fine with me. I was not here at half past 1; you were.

This Assembly should not micro-manage subsections of departments. That is a rotten precedent to raise here. Further, it should have some faith in the clinical decision making of the people who are making these decisions within the hospital. This opposition is saying that it does not trust the clinical managers in rehabilitation to look after their patients, nor does it trust them to assist in the treatment management regimes for nursing home type patients. We, on this side of the house, have every confidence in them.

These people are very confused—this will be of absolutely no surprise to anybody within the ACT borders; in fact, they could probably do with a bit of a visit and a stay within the RILU area themselves for some cerebral rehabilitation—and basically wrong and are denying people who sorely need it access to these facilities.

Remember the warning of the Minister for Health—in voting for this motion you will jeopardise the 40 beds at Calvary. The amendment that the minister has moved indicates that there will be discussion with the NRMA Road Safety Trust, consumers and practitioners in this area. I urge members to support the amendment that the minister has moved and urge them to treat Mr Smyth’s motion with the contempt that it deserves.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .